Not exactly. It's definitely one of the longer threads of late, but it starts with the assumption that there are people who HAVE switched back, and I'm not sure how common that is. Certainly nobody on that thread said "Yes." There was one who switched FROM Premiere to X, and another who switched FROM Legend and Avid to X....but both of them said that they had no plans to switch back to their FORMER nles.

I may have been reading it wrong, but that's what I saw.

Which is why I'm trying to come at it from a different angle. Somebody who said, "Okay, I've been using Legend, and X isn't for me, so I'm going to Media Composer or Premiere," and who THEN says, "Wow, I thought that that was going to work a lot better than it did. Turns out I didn't like this other thing much at all, so I'm going to go to X after all."

[Andrew Kimery]"Careful Tim, this sounds like a poll. ;)"

Which is also why this isn't a poll. LOL I'm not structuring samples, not testing my questions for bias, not correlating a cohort to a longitudinal cross-sectional, and, above all, not expecting useful results that should guide anyone's corporate policies or product development. LOL Just chewing the cud, nothing more.

So there it is. Did anybody here jump FROM either Legend or X, to Premiere or Media Composer, not like what they saw for whatever reason, and jump to, or back to, X?

[Tim Wilson]""Okay, I've been using Legend, and X isn't for me, so I'm going to Media Composer or Premiere," and who THEN says, "Wow, I thought that that was going to work a lot better than it did. Turns out I didn't like this other thing much at all, so I'm going to go to X after all.""

This happens to me repeatedly. Except I go back to the Legacy. And I did try FCPX several times.

I didn't chime in there, so I'll chime in here:
I work at a national sports network, and as a freelancer.

At the network, we work on FC7 and are switching to Premiere at the end of the season.

At home, I work on Premiere.

For me: I'm an After Effects man, and though I do find Dynamic Link buggy, it's sometimes useful.

I have given FCX three significant tries, and it's not yet for me. I actually really like the timeline--I find it pretty slick for the editing work I do. My issues with it are a sluggish interface that is a bit too bubbly/rounded and animation heavy(this makes auditions really irritating); oddities like the blade tool cutting either the previous or current frame; a handful of bugs that just made the process frustrating; and a subclipping system that doesn't fit my workflow (I'm poor with a mouse, so hover-scrub is tough for me).

Granted, Premiere's subclipping system currently appears to be broken. I also find a lot of Premiere's basic editing tools to be half-baked (in particular, I REALLY want a superimpose edit, a la FC7), and the software has its serious bugs. I need to give FCX another serious shot--maybe when the season is over I'll cut another couple of projects in it. But, for now, as I'm really fast with tracks and I spend about 50% of my time in AE, Premiere is the right choice for me.

timeline still bugs me. David Lawrence is running logging through it, so on some level it's turning out to be the 'first cut' application Ubillos actually designed it to be.

tiny rant: It's weird that people ignore the fact that the cardinal timeline decisions he took in showing it as first cut to jobs are equivalent to the timeline control available in prelude - although ubillos radically expanded it after the order to make it the entire editing basis. It's a massive pity in a way. Cook, you would think, would never be so insane as to go that intellectually Khmer Rouge Year Zero on editing understanding off one meeting you'd think.

but Ubillos's intention was for an incredibly rich logging application with a basic staging precursor timeline. you'd still think that's what X is. The timeline is loaded with immediate quick construction aids, and the footage organisation demands a ton of the GUI and is incredibly powerful.

there's no getting around the manner of X's birth and the crazy signals in it. Everyone keeps staring at the footage organisation, and Scott Simmons just asked why the timeline GUI space is still there when it's not needed.

the footage organisation is a faberge egg, the persistent inspector applicable to multiple timeline instance audio channels and that stuff is madsers, the power masks hanging off every clip still beat the current adobe kludge for style if not tracking...

Its the timeline. the secondary storylines, the connected cousins, the no audio paste, the ridiculous white dot, the stupid tilde key.

You'd think, particularly after resolve 11, the X timeline is a gigantic honking elephant in the Cupertino software room.

[Aindreas Gallagher]"Its the timeline. the secondary storylines, the connected cousins, the no audio paste, the ridiculous white dot, the stupid tilde key.

You'd think, particularly after resolve 11, the X timeline is a gigantic honking elephant in the Cupertino software room.
"

I'll give you the missing overwrite paste (insert works jus fine thank you), and I'll even throw you the inexplicably missing match frame replace and Lance's UI animation concerns. (a faster newer computer makes this less of a concern though). But everything else you cite as bad is, to me, actually quite good. So there.

Also... have you used R11? I mean actually cut something in it? You'd probably like it, but nobody who likes X is gonna switch, having fixed tracks and all. Really, the only way in which the X timeline is an elephant is that in the right hands it can easily crush the competition. :-)

And to remain on topic... Yes, I got both Pr and MC once I tried the first version of X. I found MC to be just as i remembered it, and Pr to be a beefed up, yet overly complicated version of FCP 7. I did give them both a good workout though, as well as basically sticking with 7 'til X was useable. Now i prefer X and it's my main axe, except when circumstances force me to use something else. I'd rather not have to...

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[David Lawrence]"
Dissolve from black with transition alignment set to beginning (or ending) of clip.

In FCPX, dissolves always center-allign between the gap and the clip. Not what I want."

Oddly, I used to use the heck out of that too in 7, but I haven't missed it in years. I'm not sure why. We have other things we do, like a custom made dip to black generator (as well as fade from black, and fade to black generators) that we drop on top if we don't have footage handles. Also, just being able to drag the center of the transition quickly may also play a part. Also, just throw the clip whose dissolve center you want to change on secondary, put your dissolve on the end of it, and extend it wherever you want the transition to go.
End of the day, I think that might be a legacy X thing. After a while you forget you ever did that. At least I did.

[John Davidson]"Oddly, I used to use the heck out of that too in 7, but I haven't missed it in years. I'm not sure why…
...End of the day, I think that might be a legacy X thing. After a while you forget you ever did that. At least I did."

Outside of actual bugs, and few MIA features I feel exactly the same way about how X works. I think that's why some of the complaints people have sound silly to me. Not that they're not valid complaints from the POV of whoever has 'em. It's just that I'm used to how the timeline etc works now and I do the same stuff I always did, just differently.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[John Davidson]"End of the day, I think that might be a legacy X thing. After a while you forget you ever did that. At least I did."

do you not find you miss it? Particularly for audio? asymmetrical dissolves for things like music transitions are pretty seriously important I find, particularly when cutting down a complicated track for a 30" - you sometimes really need to favour the incoming or outgoing track section in the dissolve to make it effectively blend? Like a matched build section from a later portion of the track - you nearly never want it to keep going after the edit point bar a little bit. A lot of the time for me the dissolve is a matched lead in or out. It's rarely both?

I just played with it in X - unless I'm missing something really obvious, I don't see how that dissolve is not near useless for audio?

the fact that there is rolling trim built in by hovering at the top of the dissolve feels pretty weird too? also has anyone tried a rolling trim off the left edge?
your timeline ends up looking like this? Or mine does.

[Aindreas Gallagher]"I just played with it in X - unless I'm missing something really obvious, I don't see how that dissolve is not near useless for audio?"

I actually never use audio dissolves in X, or very rarely. It's just quicker (and more precise since you can choose the curve on either side) to A/B connected clips and use the fade handles. If I need to put the A/B's in secondaries to keep the chunks together when I'm moving primary stuff around it's just a KB combo away. In 7 etc now I find myself reaching for the fade handles on clips. Cutting MX in X now is way easier for me than any other NLE I use.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

on Jul 30, 2014 at 7:45:35 pmLast Edited By John Davidson on Jul 30, 2014 at 7:49:46 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher]"I just played with it in X - unless I'm missing something really obvious, I don't see how that dissolve is not near useless for audio?"

What you did there in that image - we never do that. You're still approaching it from a track method, when the reality is you need to come at it from a layer method. We never, never, ever - NEVER - do dissolves like that on Audio only. The reason is - you don't have the control that you want. You have to come at it from a Logic way - you control each layers fade transition with the white dot to do the audio dissolve. Once you get fast at it, you don't miss how you're doing it.

I made this little example.

This is exactly the kind of thing that you once you unlearn the old way - the new way comes of much better and you have more control over it.

I'm not sure I agree with this at all. I will do keyframe based stuff overlapping if I have to, - say to get a tune to really imperceptibly fade out coming into IV - but one way or another you're simply avoiding the fact that that dissolve in X is not very usable. If I was in your situation, I would probably be doing what you are doing, but I'm not.

The reason why I think an actual edit point you can act on, with asymmetrical dissolve handles is so madly useful for music edits, is because you can use the slip and roll tools either end of the edit splice to fine tune the patch at audio sample level, while adjusting the audio transition dissolve either side of the cut to favour which ever side the beat match is on.

In short: your situation breaks the ability to perform edit point based audio slips and rolls while adjusting the incoming and outgoing dissolves to fine tune the audio patch. Although in your screengrab you seem to be AB editing two different pieces of audio: again, I'm talking about music cutdown editing for spots. something I figure we both do a lot of.

What you have is two disconnected overlapping fade outs in effect. I don't think that's in any way near as effective to my way of thinking - although I know! - legacy thinking andy..

If the audio is in a secondary, you can overlap the audio and expand each audio side, and use fade handles. Fade handles also (if you right click them) give you different dither options. You can still keep the edit point and do what you need to do, fade handle timing remains relative to the end of a clip even when you slip and slide.

This gives you control over everything you just mentioned, and then some.

[Jeremy Garchow]"You can still keep the edit point and do what you need to do,"

but jeremy - you don't have an edit point. If we're talking about a music track cutdown, what you then have is an entire series of AB music edits all across the spot.

It's not a good solution - its the lack of a functioning dissolve, resulting in the need to start AB editing your music audio edits.

Instead of a simple roll edit say, you're now talking about having to extend one end of the audio AB and trim the top of the incoming music edit. that's madness.

For want of a nail etc was lost. for want of a functioning dissolve you guys are jumping through hoops. You haven't adjusted to a new interesting paradigm - it really does look like you're jumping through hoops.

[Aindreas Gallagher]"For want of a nail etc was lost. for want of a functioning dissolve you guys are jumping through hoops."

Nope, you're wrong. Sorry. I do this stuff all day, every day, in X, 7 , and sometimes Pr. It's easy. And as John points out, if you must have a dissolve just make a secondary. Maybe they'll make the midpoint adjustable like the dip to color dissolve. X really is more like a DAW in that sense. Nobody uses "dissolves" editing music, at least nobody I know. It's all A/B with fine curve control...

EDIT: to be clear, if you like using dissolves, fine. A-You can and B- you have alternatives. But saying something's broken because it doesn't work the way you want it to is... inaccurate. :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Aindreas Gallagher]"[Charlie Austin] "if you must have a dissolve just make a secondary. "

wait - ah hang on - isn't that audio dissolve going to be still locked to the centre point of the edit?? seriously - you guys are melting my poor noodle."

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that if you feel you must have a dissolve to grab onto and asymmetrically trim, pull up , whatever, you can. I'm also saying there's no real reason to do that other than force of habit. I'm in 7 now, dissolves suck. Yes, you can change the start/end point. And you have absolutely no control over it other than that except to choose flat or +3. It's archaic. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

I do too in 7 or Pr, because the only alternative is key framing which is a PITA. In X I use the fade handles because to me, it's quicker and I get better results. Not that right clicking and adding a dissolve isn't quick, but the combo of sample level positioning (for posterity... yes, I know you can do that in Pr by switching modes) and fade curves gives me more control just as quickly. At the end of the day, I just work with any app the way it works... :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

... try the mixer. It makes adjusting levels so intuitive and direct that you'll forget you're making keyframes.
"

I've tried the mixer... I used to be a mixer. Once we upgraded to automation the console essentially controlled group levels, everything else was done in the DAW, occasionally I'd set levels with the DAW faders but never crossfades. I rarely used it in FCP "classic".

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Franz Bieberkopf]"Isn't the general chorus here that you don't complain if you're "not using it properly" or some such? Yes, here it is:"

I'm not sure what you're saying... All I'm saying is that I find that the audio tools in X work just fine. I find key framing and using a mixer to to be a PITA. I never said FCP 7 or Pr or anything was "broken".

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Aindreas Gallagher]"oh but no charlie. you agreed heartily with john. there is no force on god's creation that can take back that future microwave comment."

Oh... the explaining to grandpa comment. Well, ok then, yes. Although, like gramps, you understand it, you just don't like this newfangled contraption. :-)

Speaking of newfangled contraptions... I used to be able to do really accurate crossfades by scraping them in mag tracks. You can get some really precise curves with a razor blade. This computerized stuff is way too divisive. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Charlie Austin]"Although, like gramps, you understand it, you just don't like this newfangled contraption."

oh charlie, oh charlie. What are we to do with you.. :)

[Charlie Austin]"Speaking of newfangled contraptions... I used to be able to do really accurate crossfades by scraping them in mag tracks. You can get some really precise curves with a razor blade. This computerized stuff is way too divisive. ;-)"

Sure the father nearly lost a limb in the room (he said) off one of the early big steel spinning magnetic recorder assemblies coming unstuck and lashing out. those babies were fierce danger like..

[Aindreas Gallagher]"oh charlie, oh charlie. What are we to do with you.. :)
"

:-)

[Aindreas Gallagher]"Sure the father nearly lost a limb in the room (he said) off one of the early big steel spinning magnetic recorder assemblies coming unstuck and lashing out. those babies were fierce danger like.."

he did docs - they started on film (!) - he was never hugely specific, just recalled the steel recorders were seriously crazy machines at the time - rough guess late sixties equipment in irish television.

[Aindreas Gallagher]"he did docs - they started on film (!) - he was never hugely specific, just recalled the steel recorders were seriously crazy machines at the time - rough guess late sixties equipment in irish television."

I was hanging tracks on those beasts as recently as the early-mid 90's. We had DAW's, automated consoles, and digital recorders but some people clung to mag film for quite a while. And yeah, those recorders could be terrifying at high speed when the film snapped or a reel flew off if it wasn't secured properly. Ours were older, and bigger than the pic. Fun!

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Charlie Austin]"I'm not sure what you're saying... All I'm saying is that I find that the audio tools in X work just fine. I find key framing and using a mixer to to be a PITA. I never said FCP 7 or Pr or anything was "broken"."

Charlie,

I'm only saying that if you'd like a easier, faster, more responsive way to add keyframes, then that tool exists in FCP7. If you're happy without it then you don't need it of course, but calling keyframing audio levels in FCP7 a "pain-in-the-ass" ignores tools designed precisely to make such a thing easier.

[Franz Bieberkopf]"I'm only saying that if you'd like a easier, faster, more responsive way to add keyframes, then that tool exists in FCP7. If you're happy without it then you don't need it of course, but calling keyframing audio levels in FCP7 a "pain-in-the-ass" ignores tools designed precisely to make such a thing easier."

I see what you're saying, but we were originally talking about "dissolves" aka crossfades. Faders are the last tool I would choose to do that given the other tools at hand. And I still find faders a PITA, even with heavy smoothing and a control surface. Better than mouse clicks, and definitely useful, but anything that takes my focus out of the timeline is a PITA to me. There are things in X that are a PITA as well. But getting good, fast, accurate crossfades in audio clips isn't one of them.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Franz Bieberkopf]"I haven't been following the finer points of this particular tempest in a teacup, but I use dissolves or crossfades or whatever you would have them called to edit music."

Of course, as do I if I'm not in X. I was actually referring to editing/mixing the actual music... making "records". :-) Most engineers I know wouldn't choose a crossfade transition, they A/B stuff and do it that way. Better results.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

Have you tried the cross dissolve/ fade? isn't it bananas? It's basically a rigid overlay that allows you to continue trimming and rolling the cut either end of it. If you hover at the top left or right end of the dissolve, it allows you to trim the clip/or rather the entire connected sequence based on that edge of the dissolve. look:

you're about to magnetically trim the entire top of that edit, with all connected clips, off the back of that dissolve edge. it's kind of a dissolve, but really it's another three implied edit points - centre right and left - where you can act on the entire connected sequence.

It's total raging madness. that timeline is, I submit: certifiably insane.for god's sake even the dissolves are insane?

there you are - to recall, STP even pleasingly animated the bridge curves on the join. adobe does look, as ever, a tiny bit GUI janky.

although if you did have a dream, it would run to the tune of a committed team somehow visibly producing near nothing bar odds and ends with a carefully re-constructed file container media handling system for around two years now?

It seems really hard to believe that that has entirely occupied the minds of a profitable, intellectual mad house bleeding edge pro apps team.
for 24 months.

or this is just pages, and they're playing cards. Or maybe there's a pride thing, and it's a swift situation.

[Aindreas Gallagher]"but jeremy - you don't have an edit point. If we're talking about a music track cutdown, what you then have is an entire series of AB music edits all across the spot."

That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Think of it this way, a fade handle can equate to half of an audio dissolve. You can create the asymmetry on the other audio clip, whenever it may be, secondary or not, and unlike keyframes, the fade handle remains adjusted relative to the end of the clip with an addition of an adjustable fade curve.

[Jeremy Garchow]"Think of it this way, a fade handle can equate to half of an audio dissolve. You can create the asymmetry on the other audio clip, "

yes. sweet jesus kids - instead of a functioning edit point operation on the audio - you've doubled everything up and are working two separate pieces of audio.
I really do truly understand that, better again, i'm taking issue with the fact that you end up having to do that all the time because you have, well, a nearly useless audio transition tool...

[Aindreas Gallagher]"you've doubled everything up and are working two separate pieces of audio."

Then just use a secondary and a dissolve and adjust it. Changing the start or end point a la Fcp 7 etc is exactly the same as dragging the midpoint in X. It's a dissolve. it always has a mid-point, no matter where it starts or ends. You're grasping at straws.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

I have charlie, an audio edit that splices from an earlier bar to a later bar. the incoming section is bang on, but the dissolve cannot go more than four or five frames on the right because the track starts to alter after that on the earlier bar, i give it 15 frames to blend on the left, and a small dissolve tail of 5 on the exit. That's my splice.

[Charlie Austin]"Changing the start or end point a la Fcp 7 etc is exactly the same as dragging the midpoint in X."

so you see this is all completely wrong. In X i have instead an applied 20 frame dissolve. yes I can alter the centre point, but I am simply shoving the edit point itself with the ten frames of dissolve on either side left or right. What I need to do, when its sits at the correct point, once I know the underlying edit splice is bang on, is make the incoming edit dissolve 15, and the outgoing 5.

what you are suggesting charlie, and what X offers, is the ability to move the edit point itself with the dissolve slaved to it. It's always ten frames either side. That's not a goer.

Interestingly, while 7 allowed the shifting of the total dissolve left or right to favour the incoming or outgoing audio, PPro goes one further and treats the left and right as two independent handle edits. It's really nice.

You can tell me it takes you four seconds to start AB editing every single music audio edit you ever do, but those four seconds add up baby, and I would be driven clean out of my mind having to split a single track into endless AB edits in order to control something as basically necessary as what we're talking about.

The X dissolve tool is total pants. it's OK to say it. No harm will come to you!

[John Davidson]"I feel like I'm describing how the microwave works to my Grandpa."

ah christ but you guys are funny i swear. what do you think you're holding john? A ray gun?its an edit system with some great points and some very stupid stuff, and a really, really really crappy dissolve tool. I mean - is someone holding a gun to your head john? blink twice if so. It's OK to say its a lousy dissolve tool mate.

jesus but that line made me laugh out loud there. Not in a bad way, but Sometimes I swear.... do you lads really wonder why we say koolaid sometimes?

lets have that again one more time sure.

[John Davidson]"I feel like I'm describing how the microwave works to my Grandpa."

ah man. that's one for the ages. Did apple give ye rocket packs as well????

sorry - I'm ribbing you john, but that was genuinely funny as hell bud. you gave me the giggles. :)

The fact that you think what John and i are saying is based on some irrational love of Apple products is stupid Aindreas. You have an opinion based on a cursory, prejudiced use of FCP X and a lot of experience in FCP 7 other NLE's. But you're pontificating as though we have no experience at all in anything but FCP X. The inflexible audio dissolves in X don't matter. The lack of tracks and magnetism and secondary/connected clips are not a hindrance to anything. Unless you don't like them, which is fine. They're all pretty damn useful to me, and I miss them when I'm in other NLE's. Also, I prefer whiskey. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Charlie Austin]"The fact that you think what John and i are saying is based on some irrational love of Apple products is stupid Aindreas. "
you both just said that your experience with X was like explaining a microwave to a previous generation. I'm going to be easy on you charlie - that would be sad if it wasn't inherently funny.

It's just a completely insane thing to say. Also it seemed (?) you didn't get the basic problem with the X dissolves until I outlined it to you there.
[Aindreas Gallagher] "i give it 15 frames to blend on the left, and a small dissolve tail of 5 on the exit."
Point taken. Still, I find editing audio without dissolves to be quicker and more precise in X than in 7 or Pr.

what's better to me overall is when you say:

[Charlie Austin]"The inflexible audio dissolves in X don't matter. The lack of tracks and magnetism and secondary/connected clips are not a hindrance to anything. Unless you don't like them, which is fine. "

Grand - I can look at that and make my own decision. But you don't have a future microwave Charlie. That's a personal fantasy on your part.
maybe more john's part seeing as how he actually said the thing??

Seriously though, I haven't thought about this supposed problem in years man, years. Of all the speculative issues I could have with X I don't consider this one at all. It's hard to explain it, but where you see an issue I see freedom.

We've completed so many projects since moving to X. My editors and I routinely sit down and discuss how we're working with it - this never comes up. Since the 10.1.2 update and our workflow change to local libraries (as well as moving everyone to 10Gbe) problems with the actual editing are few and far between. Most of our issues are related to just figuring things out - like XML as a backup, etc.

Locking together clips for a dissolve really never comes up. They're just not as relevant to how you edit in X when you get deep into it. Sometimes we use them, but rarely. We prefer to keep elements separate so they can slip and slide as we want. The dissolves still happen - they're just not cemented in anymore.

If you mean he's right in that you can't put an asymmetric dissolve transition on an audio cut in X, yes. If you think he's right in saying audio editing is somehow hobbled in FCP X because of that then both he, and you, are wrong.

EDIT: Not to say you can't have that opinion, just, well... it's not true. :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Charlie Austin]"f you mean he's right in that you put an asymmetric dissolve transition on an audio cut in X, yes. If you think he's right in saying audio editing is somehow hobbled in FCP X because of that then both he, and you, are wrong."

It all depends on what you're doing, Charlie. I'll show you when I get a free minute.

[David Lawrence]"[Charlie Austin] "f you mean he's right in that you put an asymmetric dissolve transition on an audio cut in X, yes. If you think he's right in saying audio editing is somehow hobbled in FCP X because of that then both he, and you, are wrong."

It all depends on what you're doing, Charlie. I'll show you when I get a free minute."

I'm sure there are situations where an asymmetric dissolve would be useful. All I'm saying is the only reason I would miss it in X is if I was trying to do something exactly like I do in another NLE. But why would I do that? I don't skim clips or scroll beyond an edit point in the timeline or turn source audio channels on and off in PrCC. Because I can't. I work in it in the way it was designed to accomplish the same thing. I guess I should be posting about how broken it is.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[David Lawrence]"[Shawn Miller] "Right-click on the clip, select "audio channels", change any channels you don't want to use to "none"."

Thanks Shawn, that's one. ;)"

And if I don't want any of them? Like, I don't want to see them in the timeline at all, but then I want to 3 weeks later?

[David Lawrence]"To skim a clip, drag the time indicator with your mouse. To scroll beyond an edit point in the timeline, drag the time indicator with your mouse. Try it, it's easy!"

Yes I get that, I was talking about doing it in the timeline without specifically selecting anything and mousing somewhere else.

Look, I didn't mean for this to be a feature for feature comparison. My point is that saying that X is somehow substandard ridiculous. It's not. I can sit here and come up with a whole raft of things that I don't like about, or can't do, in Pr just like I can in X. But I don't. PrCC is great. I'm glad you all prefer it. However, FCP X is better. I can totally back up this fact using the same reasoning as a lot of people who don't agree. Because I said so. :-P

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Charlie Austin]"[David Lawrence] "[Shawn Miller] "Right-click on the clip, select "audio channels", change any channels you don't want to use to "none"."

Thanks Shawn, that's one. ;)"

And if I don't want any of them? Like, I don't want to see them in the timeline at all, but then I want to 3 weeks later?"

Yes, you can work that way as well. The trick though is that you have to set the channel format of the clip(s) to adaptive in the project panel (or make "adaptive" the default method for handling audio tracks). From there, you can select how many audio channels a clip uses, how many active channels per track etc. After that, you can enable, disable, reassign channels from the timeline all you want... channels will then disappear and re-appear as you change assignments.

[Shawn Miller]"Yes, you can work that way as well. The trick though is that you have to set the channel format of the clip(s) to adaptive in the project panel (or make "adaptive" the default method for handling audio tracks)."

You lost me at "tracks". ;-)

Kidding, good to know, thanks. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Shawn Miller]"[Charlie Austin] "...or turn source audio channels on and off in PrCC."

Actually, you can...

EDIT: Dangit! David beat me to it. :-)
"

I guess I wasn't clear. If I cut a multichannel AV clip into the timeline, and decide I don't want channels 2 and 4, I have to disable or delete them in Pr or whatever. If I delete them and then decide 3 days later I do want them, I need to match back to the source and cut them in again, or drag around a bunch of disabled sync audio until I decide to enable it or not. Right?

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

I guess I wasn't clear. If I cut a multichannel AV clip into the timeline, and decide I don't want channels 2 and 4, I have to disable or delete them in Pr or whatever. If I delete them and then decide 3 days later I do want them, I need to match back to the source and cut them in again, or drag around a bunch of disabled sync audio until I decide to enable it or not. Right?"

Nope, you can turn clip channels on and off at will. I do this quite often when working with P2 footage.

FWIW - since you have been talking about dissolves, fade handles, etc. - it's worth noting that DAWs do audio dissolves, too. They are called crossfades and they can be asymmetrical.

All of this is like a tinker toy compared with how Media Composer does it. Even FCP 7 and PPro are crude by comparison. On MC, you can drive the position and length of the dissolve before and after the dissolve center point - all driven strictly by keyboard. None of this BS mousing around.

Furthermore, the last value entered is held until changed. Watch a talented MC editor apply dissolves to a series of clips and the speed blows away anything out there. You can also gang a group of clips and apply dissolves to all the cuts at once.

[Charlie Austin]"f you mean he's right in that you can't put an asymmetric dissolve transition on an audio cut in X, yes. If you think he's right in saying audio editing is somehow hobbled in FCP X because of that then both he, and you, are wrong.

EDIT: Not to say you can't have that opinion, just, well... it's not true. :-)"

[Aindreas Gallagher]"i give it 15 frames to blend on the left, and a small dissolve tail of 5 on the exit."

Point taken. Still, I find editing audio without dissolves to be quicker and more precise in X than in 7 or Pr. You need them in those apps because, other than keyframes, you have no choice. And yes, the PR CC dissolve adjustment tab offers very nice control. I can do the exact same thing, with finer control, in the X timeline using fade handles just as easily. Easier actually.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Aindreas Gallagher]"In short: your situation breaks the ability to perform edit point based audio slips and rolls while adjusting the incoming and outgoing dissolves to fine tune the audio patch. Although in your screengrab you seem to be AB editing two different pieces of audio: again, I'm talking about music cutdown editing for spots. something I figure we both do a lot of.
"

The old FCPX7 is more of a hack IMHO. Our way is more like an actual audio mixer would do it in ProTools, Logic, etc. So much of audio dissolves in legacy FCP was a guessing game, hoping and experimenting repeatedly with "hmm, let's try it with start on edit - no, - now let's try end on edit ' maybe? Oh I give up." With this, you can sub frame edit with such precision that it's sick.

I get where you're coming from - I had initial resistance - but this way is FAST and deadly accurate when you get good at it.

To your point of cut downs, rather than start with the :30 and cutdown to the :15, we just drop the :30 in a new project, lose whatever clips we need to lose, and then quickly adjust extensions which is pretty painless. If things are on secondary layers over a blank gap clip, the you blade the gap and extend/contract trim it until the space between whatever clips aren't deleted is gone.

If you really want to have a hard split at a single point, you can just compound clip your audio - but I don't prefer that method.

On audio post methodology, I've seen quite a lot of it - in the place where I am there are ten year fairlight guys - they use fade handles John... they use them an awful lot? They have the singular advantage of sitting sperate from the audio material, and in fairlight you can tweak the hell out of them. if you don't like it, you delete them with a click. Your AB carry on lacks that virtue!

[John Davidson]"To your point of cut downs, rather than start with the :30 and cutdown to the :15,"
nope - on that I mean going about the act of cutting down a three minute commercial track to a 30" you know?

for whatevers - I just did this one for a promo. Vampire weekend. V.Tricky track!

I think you're looking for a specific line that just tells you what you want, but you have to use your ears (it IS audio, mind you). Granted, I can see exactly where the dissolve happens when I look at my screen grab, but you're perhaps just getting stuck in your head that you HAVE to have a direct hard dissolve icon to know where your dissolve is.

The reality is that many of us do this every day and have had performance boosts because of it. You don't, and so it feels kludgy to you. The only way you'll ever get it is if a client puts a gun to your head and forces you to edit with x, in which case 6 months down the road you'll be like 'Jesus, THAT'S how I used to do it?'

[John Davidson]"What you did there in that image - we never do that. You're still approaching it from a track method, when the reality is you need to come at it from a layer method. We never, never, ever - NEVER - do dissolves like that on Audio only."

I'm so glad you said this John. I totally agree. I was wondering if I was crazy hehehe

I have been working like this from the start with X and I find that I really like the sound of the crossfade of the music this way. I have easier control and I just really like it.

What's wrong with the white dot? I love that thing! 70% of the time what I want in the inspector is automatically there whiteout having to manually select a clip. If you need to select something else then you do, but law of averages for me is that it's saved LOADS of manual selection clicks and mouse moves.

[Marcus Moore]"What's wrong with the white dot? I love that thing! 70% of the time what I want in the inspector is automatically there whiteout having to manually select a clip. If you need to select something else then you do, but law of averages for me is that it's saved LOADS of manual selection clicks and mouse moves.
"

I can't wait until a keystroke (like shift up or down) can select a different layer and move the white dot. This would make keyboard selecting layers so much easier.

I already like what X offers in terms of keyboard editing. I can do a whole hell of a lot without touching a mouse/track pad.

If anyone is familiar with Autodesk Smoke, you'd know the white dot has a lot of potential.

I've been wary about suggestions of trying to turn it into a "manual" selection tool; but yes I suppose if you could use a command key to go up or down the stack it would save you having to move your mouse from the keyboard. Though depending on what is it you want to select, let's say an audio clip 20 layers down, a mouse move and manual selection would be just as efficient.

Sounds like a feature request!

Honestly, after having it since 10.1, I'm STILL training myself that I no longer need to manually select clips to bring them up in the inspector anymore- so most of the inefficiency is still on my part at this point.

What I would like to see is the white dots capabilities expanded. You still need to manually select a clip to do a copy/paste or paste attributes- that's one I'd like to see.

I'm one of those that has gone back and forth several times on both PC and Mac platforms. While I was a long time FCP user I was also concurrently using Sony Vegas on a PC for most of the past decade. After using Premiere CC for the past year with overall positive results I've made the switch to FCPX and liking it a lot - some glaring weaknesses are key framing, lack of a simple way to replace a clip in the timeline i.e. Right-click "replace" and /or match-framing. But overall I like it.

If something better comes along like Resolve 12 or Vegas 14 on the PC I'll happily check them out and give them a serious look.

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

I haven't switched back yet, but pretty much on the verge. The program is still too buggy to be trusted. I'm working on a 10 min. short with X due to the RED workflow. Yesterday, X simply refused to import one set of files. If I created a new event and imported them there, all was good. Just not in the original event for out camera footage.

We'd imported all the audio for double-system sound. We imported the whole audio folder containing the Sound Devices files. Today, we realized that about 20 takes simply weren't imported for no particular reasons. Plus a lot of crashes today out of the blue.

But... the choice will be to go to Media Composer, not to Premiere, unless I need to, for client compatibility.

Bummer - I haven't worked with raw Red footage yet and have tried to remain 100% Pro Res.

One thing I don't like about importing is that FCPX will reject files, sometimes even if it is the original file! Many times I'd like to replace a file in the timeline with an updated file - say a shot from graphics or fx - and I want to replace the file no matter what - if it doesn't match the frame-rate or codec or audio config etc it should be my choice to go ahead and replace/update and not FCPX!

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Ah, but this is a switch in the other direction! From something (Media Composer or Symphony I assume?) to X, then out of X back to Media Composer.

Although I'm intrigued -- had you considered yourself to have become "an FCPX guy," rather than just using it for a job? I know that when you commit to something you commit...so I guess I'm asking, had you gone long enough to consider yourself committed?

But I'm still looking for someone who said, "Welp, the grass was NOT greener on the other side. It's BACK to X for me."

So I'm not talking about JUST converting TO FCPX. I'm talking about having LEFT the Apple-verse for Adobe or Avid, not liking it well enough to stay, then coming back to X and saying, "Ah yes, THIS feels right."

And to lay out the bias that's built into my question, I'd be surprised if anyone fit that scenario. Gone is gone. But I'm wrong often enough that I won't be surprised to be wrong. :-)

[Tim Wilson]"Although I'm intrigued -- had you considered yourself to have become "an FCPX guy," rather than just using it for a job? I know that when you commit to something you commit...so I guess I'm asking, had you gone long enough to consider yourself committed?"

I've used X pretty solid for 3 years, where I've had the choice. Not based on a job. I don't consider myself and FCP, FCP X, or Avid editor. Just an editor.

Right now I'm still using X, but it's frustrating that bugs like those I hit are still there. It makes it undependable. This is what prevents me from committing whole hog to X. Every time I think that it's safe, something burns me. Sometimes little things. Sometimes major.

Took at a look in editing Resolve, looks like an alternative and tried going back to Adobe CS 5. The grass was brown not green. Looking at Lightworks a try. Anyone have experience with The Foundry Heiro? Looking that as well.

This probably doesn't count for Tim, but I recently did one **very** small project in PPro. Like a day's worth. Felt like I was back to using a flip phone after being on a smartphone for years. Just too retro. Stone knives and bearskins.

OK, that was maybe a touch of hyperbole, but really, it did feel like stepping back in time.

That's odd. I haven't had that problem in so long I forgot all about it. I do that all the time with stills and AE renders. Don't even have to relink. Just leave it in the sequence and rerender the AE.file right over the old one.

With AE it's easy. Just choose " duplicate with file name " in the render que. Another trick- I always use the work area when I add to the render que, but then I choose the "custom" duration, which defaults to the work area. If you leave it set to work area, and then dupe with file name, the duration will be whatever the current work are is, not the area you rendered before.

The relinking issue is the main reason that I lost all trust in FCPX, and submitted to Adobe.

The issue ruined a complete show for me, because FCPX suddenly would not recognise any media (just because it had been loaded into Premiere for a test). I tried to clean the meta-data, but FCPX was still a bitch - so eventually ended up relinking (MTS files) from the original SD card. Everything came back in to FCPX out of sync, and I had to go through every darn cut and move every single audio key frame manually.

[Lance Bachelder]"Bummer - I haven't worked with raw Red footage yet and have tried to remain 100% Pro Res."

More on this. The files that would not import in the main event, decided to finally show up today. This resulted in duplicate clips. Apparently one of the "rolls" contained mainly corrupt clips (bad camera hard drive?). This caused a ton of crashing in FCP X. I finally realized that and converted these to ProRes4444 using Redcine X Pro. This crashed a few times, too, but for the most part muscled through.

This native media editing death-wish with a complex (and often flawed) format like RED is not worth the hassle.

I agree about native - the strength and stability of Avid was that you had to import into an Avid codec before editing - there was nothing else. Now that Redcine is so fast without having to buy a Red Rocket I just use my presets and convert to Pro Res 444 and edit that - I don't do proxy either even though FCPX has a nice proxy workflow.

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

I'll jump in. I have been using FCP since v2. I stayed with FCP7 when X came out. After a year, decided I should start learning new NLEs. Used X a couple times as well as Premiere CS6. Decided to jump to Premiere CS6 as my main editor. Then, along came CC. Not really the place to go into details but I am not a fan of subscription
NLEs so jumped back out of CS6 and into FCP X. It's better than it was but I wish you could attach 'secondary storylines' to other 'secondary storylines' and a few other things. I am also learning resolve v11 which looks like a cross between FCP 7 and FCP X.

Well PP was a little annoying in the way a new NLE is at first. What you have to twirl
down audio tracks to drag the volume up or down? Just little things. Honestly it
didn't take long, especially because Adobe (very intelligent thinking by them)
provided FCP7 keyboard shortcuts. In all honesty, I'd be using Adobe's newest
offering today if they hadn't switched to subscription only. But just as I was getting
used to it...along comes CC. Now if you think it's annoying having to learn
a new NLE, try switching and j.......u...s...t as you are getting comfortable,
switching again. Argh!! But hey, I've learned a lesson. Don't depend on
any of them. Become at least adequate in several NLEs. Give yourself
options. And for the record, I just cut a job in Resolve 11. It's a much better NLE
than I was expecting. Needs some filters and transitions development maybe,
but a very promising addition in my opinion. Give it a couple years and I have
a suspicion that there may be a good number of us 'FCP7 refugees' taking a
serious look at a 'color grading NLE'.

[Tim Wilson]"[Chris Harlan] " Not me. I've been very happy with both Avid and Premiere. Both worked out better than I expected."

Hmmmm....also an interesting answer. What were you expecting, and how are they better?
"

Well, I was quite the fan of FCP, and really doubted that I'd find something as good for what I do. I had to really relearn Avid when I went back to it, and kind of resented the interface at first. It grew on me, and once I'd absorbed the mode metaphor, I found that I really enjoyed the interface. I love the source timeline, and the trimming mode, but I also really like the smart tool, which was new for me. Premiere, on the other hand, has pretty much everything I liked about FCP--flexibility, being number one--but is more mature. I feel very comfortable moving back and forth between the two. I still use FCP 7 now and again, as well. Between the three, I'm quite content.

What really bugs me is the inconsistency in the development of this software from version to version whereby entire workflows, maybe around importing media or how the event browser works are totally reinvented. These new structures then come with a fresh set of bugs, things that don't work properly such as trying unsuccessfully to re-link files because the way that the system work has changed. Very similar to Oliver Peters experience.

[Oliver Peters]"I haven't switched back yet, but pretty much on the verge. The program is still too buggy to be trusted. I'm working on a 10 min. short with X due to the RED workflow. Yesterday, X simply refused to import one set of files. If I created a new event and imported them there, all was good. Just not in the original event for out camera footage."

So 3 years in and overall FCPX works fine for someone in my position running a small production company producing documentary styled productions to broadcast specifications and drawing on mixed format archives. I think from what I've heard that Premiere Pro is probably more advanced than FCP7 used to be but I couldn't bare going through the retro learning curve to start using it. I never open FCP7 anymore and would have difficult operating it if I did.

[Tim Wilson]"Given how many people haven't substantially moved AT ALL beyond some experimentation, I'm probably asking this a couple of years to early...or am I?"

In a recent blog Larry Jordan reported that it is still possible to buy new boxed sets of Final Cut Studio and who know it might work really well on these new macs we have all got now.

So here's my twopennorth. I've decided to become an agnostic editor. It's easier for me as I tend toward ob doc work, that is largely cuts only. Every once in a while I'll treat myself to a dissolve.

X - well I really enjoy cutting on it. And directors I've worked with, once they've got over their initial fear (you mean it's not an Avid?) love it too - they seem to have much more of a handle on the UI in terms of understanding what I'm doing, and the organisational power seems to mean they have a better handle on the footage. 7, Avid and Premiere all seem very opaque in comparison - their UI's work against understanding for non-editors.

Avid - now the tool I do most paid work on. And it does work - even though it can be hideously clunky (AMA I'm looking at you...) it seems to have solidity. I can understand how post houses feel comfortable with that. It's not too bad for my type of editing - the mode and smart tools work well enough and trimming is fine - but I like a more tactile timeline so X and 7 still win here for me. There are still many many things that MC does well, and I can't see it being replaced anytime soon. But god help me if I have to do any heavy graphics-based work on it - the whole nesting effects thing still brings me out in a cold sweat and I realise how much of a paradigm shift FCPs effects handling was when it launched.

Premiere I'm going to have to learn, if only because quite a few people over here are turning to it as far as in-house units are going, presumably because of no need to ditch hardware. The limited amount I have played with PP7 it was impressive but not immediately slick - but again I don't have the experience on it to really comment.

FCP7 still ticks many of the boxes - responsive timeline, easily accessible tools - so I still cut on that if I have the choice between that and Avid. It'll be fine for some time to come for many of the projects I do.

So working across many NLEs seem to be the way of the world for us freelancers, though I have a sneaking suspicion that if they can fix issues around sluggishness and some of the odd UI stuff in X it's metadata capabilities will turn a few heads towards it in years to come, and with the advent of proper XML support there may be many more using it as a logging/first rough cut tool before moving on to something like Resolve for a polish.

So I do switch, back and forth as the job entails. Where I can I'll use X - if it's the right tool for the job - and if not, one of the others will suffice. Aside from the annoyance of muscle memory errors, I don't find switching that troublesome any more...

_________________________________

Before you criticise a man, walk a mile in his shoes.
Then when you do criticise him, you'll be a mile away. And have his shoes.

[Eric Santiago]"Im not sure what you mean? There has been one major change of late.
Before that Events/Projects were barely touched."

I was referring to the options when importing media between versions10.1 and 10.1.2 - the option to view and set storage locations for each of the libraries using the Library Properties inspector.

I think the the key development in FCPX came with 10.1 when the big division between the Event Library and Project Library was unified.

Don't get me wrong FCPX has improved exponentially since 2011 when it was a sticky, buggy, awkward piece of software with a lot of potential for those that stuck with it. I had huge difficulties completing edits and not even very complex ones at that.

Generally since 10.1, for me, the spinning ball, force quit, trash preferences workflow has been replaced with a far more stable platform.

I moved from 7 to x. It was hard to adjust to x at first but once i got the hang of it i realised how user friendly it was. I now use it all of the time and would highly recommend it to anyone who is thinking about jumping ship.